easycure

Ah, by the way, I found this gem on Scaruffi's page about DT regarding "Metropolis part.2" :-D .. "The pronounced melodicism degenerates into nightclub songs like Through Her Eyes and One Last Time, languid and sentimental ballads that are somewhat unworthy for intellectuals of their level."

I repeat: Scaruffi is not the Almighty; obviously, I agree with Scaruffi on Slint, but not at all on Dream Theater. In any case, Spiderland by Slint does NOT receive, even from Scaruffi, the same rating or the same type of evaluation as Images and Words. In fact, the review of Images and Words has NO historical references (which also confirms that Scaruffi does not base his analysis solely on historical/cultural assessments), and the only historical reference present in the entry on DT is: "In the evolutionary line that goes from EL&P to Yes and then from Rush to Queensryche, Dream Theater combines the more hostile sounds of rock music with the heavier ones..."

Clearly, you missed a good part of the recent discussion: 1) we were talking about Ayreon, not DT. 2) we weren't even specifically discussing Ayreon as a band, but rather the reviews dedicated to Ayreon; then we ended up talking about reviews in general. So the reference to Scaruffi does NOT concern his tastes, his preferences, his ratings. It relates to his way of writing reviews.

Of course I saw it. And so what? :-) I never said I agree with him on everything; that would be pretty pathetic. Mine was simply an example of a "good review."

Furthermore, you would absurdly expect to "explain" the reviews of Scaruffi and co. just as well as my way of understanding criticism through a supposed "mentalism"... I want to reassure you :-) ...I do not deny myself any emotion: the way I understand criticism is very simply what my taste, my musical approach suggests to me: if a piece is banal (to my sensitivity), it simply means nothing to me, it doesn't move me... It seems to me, underneath, that you have the same approach when you talk about "well-played piece but not banal". As you can see, the principle is the same. And it’s still a matter of sensitivity. On the other hand, I could say the same: from my point of view, it actually surprises and saddens me that someone must resort to bands that cannot do without structures, interpretations, and ultracomplex and high-sounding canons to feel emotion, while at the same time, in their more melodic pieces, they use the most classic and banal stylistic features of melodic rock. The discussion is quite easily reversible :-)

But WHY? I ask myself this question; why is their writing beautiful? Because it’s original, outside the standards of the typical song, because it’s visionary yet communicative, because it has style. These are all considerations that CANNOT ignore a cultural analysis (from which, I believe, no one can actually diverge; the contrary seems rather unprovable) but that do NOT identify at all with a historical/cultural analysis, rather exposing concepts that are far more universal and certainly not merely applicable to history and culture. It seems to me that you, in a critique, want to deny every reason (and this makes it, in one way or another, a priori attitude): "it’s beautiful because the melody is beautiful"; this means nothing. One could say this about every single composed piece. You say: "played in a genuine way but not obvious and banal"; Fine: and what would be the criteria to evaluate this banality and this obviousness? We always return to that... :-)

but you continue to be absolutely biased by attributing a purely historical and cultural matrix to my point of view, just like to the reviews I posted: mine is not just a historical and cultural perspective.. strange that you haven't noticed it after months and months of discussion: so what are all the various concepts of expressiveness, substance, content, originality doing here? :-) I’ve repeated them, you'll agree, to the point of nausea yet you don't take them into account at all: once I gave you the example of the Cure, remember? Well, the Cure historically are worth very little.. in the context of New Wave they were neither the first nor the most important, and even less can their production be considered innovative: yet the Cure have, in my opinion, an exceptional, beautiful songwriting.

Such criticisms are useless? Come on, give me a break.. it's precisely these criticisms that lay the foundation for an aesthetic principle, they at least allow for a genuine attempt to discern beauty from ugliness, they allow for the growth of one’s aesthetic sense, they enable one to read, that is, to LISTEN and not just to hear an album.. I’m sorry for you that you only need to know from a critique that the arrangements are beautiful and that in 120 minutes an album showcases 20 different genres.. for me, such a critique is merely a mediocre admission that Rock, evidently, in its superficiality (or worse: the uselessness) of content is not art. Or at least, it is an inferior art compared to others. I won’t accept it and I will never accept it.. because there are albums like Repeater or Spiderland that prove the opposite.. but then why should I consider anything other than ridiculous criticisms that wouldn’t allow me to qualitatively discern “Supernatural” by Santana from “Dark Side of the Moon” by Pink Floyd? (because the discussion on arrangements and vocals is perfectly applicable to both without any tangible difference other than genre).. so I would like to understand what distinguishes a criticism like the ones you mean from a supposed masterpiece and a presumed pile of rubbish.. or should they only be distinguished based on genre? Based on what a band plays? ..So the Ayreon, who play progressive, are OBVIOUSLY better than Pausini (despite her beautiful voice and skill) just because they play a different genre.. considerations, then, until proven otherwise, are purely a priori.

Apart from that, it's simply a method of analysis that looks at what a work of art is. And it doesn't limit itself to what a work of art has, using it as a formal expedient. Because THIS is terribly aestheticizing in its constant reliance on a priori assumptions: what does it mean that artists have dedication—therefore it’s a great record? What does it mean that the singer has a beautiful voice and sings well—therefore it’s a great record? What does it mean that the arrangements are beautiful—therefore it’s a great record? ALL of these are a priori assumptions, because they impose as a prior condition, stale and unchanging, some dubious "dogmas" that are purely interpretative and totally illogical (why should the ability to sing alone be the hallmark of a great piece?) and make them the basis for judging the piece. They do not listen to what the piece communicates and THEREFORE judge the record.. they start from premises that should be the CONSEQUENCES. All of this is quite absurd, and for me rather horrible.

Ah, and wouldn’t it be aestheticizing to criticize by looking at the arrangements and the technical quality of the singers? Please! Moreover, it’s you who is reading all this intellectualism into the critiques I have presented as examples. I only see a lot of rigor there, as well as the expression of critics who have listened to everything in their lives. It’s clear that if your premises are to see these critiques as constant historical/chronological assumptions, your argument might hold water. But it’s not like that. Neither I nor the critiques I have proposed necessarily place a historical analysis on these records, or at least not solely. Of course, the premise of any critique must be a minimum of contextualization: it would be presumptuous (as well as absolutely aestheticizing in its substantial apriorism) to evaluate a record entirely devoid of any contextual reference, as if a record did not exist within the culture it is part of.